Hi,
safetypee,
Thank you for your dense comment. Very rich and motivating.
The theme is fascinating. I did study Technology (starting in 1967) and increasingly became interested in the "Human Factors", and the non tangible aspects.
My view is Technology as a just a tool to allow us to:
1) Do more (efficiency)
2) Do it better (effectiveness)
3) Do it safer
4) To help for Quality of Life
All this require proper use of it (technology). Requiring adequate understanding, (of what you are doing, using, etc.). Adequate in some adverse situations could mean:
Deep understanding.. Just (operation) training could be insufficient.
I will study the links you provide. As a researcher (working in R&D) currently working in 2 projects (and a family of products) the concepts of this thread are also important to me. I visited your thread on
Monitoring & Intervention and will be a pleasure to do an effort with you, may be useful to professionals who emphasizes Safety. As a way to preserve human life and have better Quality of Life.
* And last not least to do more, including high ROC to reach new heights in non tangible and also in tangible aspects.
In a complex system just because increasing automation use is seen as an input, this may not mean that it is a dominant cause of the ‘accident’ output.
Sure.
The initiating question infers that increasing technological sophistication has changed the balance of the man-machine interface.
I see the "interface" as being necessarily SOPHISTICATED in the meaning Leonardo da Vinci put:
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
My feeling is the "interface" don't receive the "required attention", the necessary investments. Complex Systems to be operated safe need you can be in control (full) control if necessary. This requires a lot of "features" in the Project.
What we need is "Fault tolerance and Graceful Degradation" (System + Man). With a good "interface" the man can do better. With less stress on his shoulders. When extreme situations occur. Anomalies of all types simply occur. And you not need to be a Chuck Yeager or Bob Hover. "Trained" to the highest requirements.
So, the theme is vast. My idea is just put some light (i consider this important to us) on the interface because it may play a role in our Safety. Important for our life. As pilots, engineers or just SLF.
I consider important to share concepts we are convinced as important to many people. Concepts obviously not even mentioned in the marketing of the products we use.
In aviation IMHO many incidents and accidents seems received "direct contribution" from "lack of investments" in good man machine interface. Pilots vulnerability as a result. This seems not fair.
LOC (AF447 crash, Fukushima plant, etc.) may be considered as design failures where problems were a consequence of human limitations (of several types, including $) that led to disasters. Three GE engineers quit Fukushima Daichi project when realized the project was not being made in the way they considered adequate.The Tsunami was much higher than (the design specs.) and the APU's were flooded and failed triggering the LOC. In AF447 case atmospheric conditions triggered a cascade of events. But you also must think the crew triggered the disaster by entering WX. Or Fukushima was triggered by lack of enough investment (placing the APU's higher). Always there will be a trigger.
But some designs fail smoothly. Giving better chances to be saved or even, survive. Accelerated degradation has to be avoided. (By design, maintenance and operation). And it's possible (in many cases) to do much better. You need to be careful. And well prepared.